PER CURIAM: James R. Childers (Husband) appeals a family court
order modifying a divorce decree entered between him and Angela W. Childers
(Wife). On appeal, Husband argues the family court erred in (1) calculating
his new child support obligation and arrearage in child support, (2) ordering
him to pay $6,446.70, representing half of his daughter's college expenses, and
(3) ordering him to pay $5,000.00 of Wife's attorney's fees. We affirm[1] pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the
following authorities:

1. As to whether the
family court erred in calculating Husband's new child support obligation and his
child support arrearage: Widman v. Widman, 348 S.C. 97, 118-19, 557
S.E.2d 693, 704-05 (Ct. App. 2001) (holding mathematical mistakes must be
brought to the attention of the family court to be preserved for appeal).

2. As to whether the
family court erred in ordering Husband to pay $6,446.70, representing half of
his daughter's college expenses: Doe v. Doe, 370 S.C. 206, 212, 634
S.E.2d 51, 55 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding the wife's argument regarding the family court's identification and
valuation of marital property was not preserved for
appellate review because she failed to point out the alleged error to the family court in her Rule
59(e), SCRCP, motion); Arnal v. Arnal, 363 S.C. 268, 299, 609
S.E.2d 821, 838 (Ct. App. 2005), aff'd as modified, 371 S.C. 10,
636 S.E.2d 864 (2006) (stating wife failed to preserve claim that family court erred in excluding from
the final order a parcel of land that was marital property, when, after the final
order was issued, wife did not file a motion to alter or
amend judgment raising the issue of the value of parcel to the family court judge).

3. As to whether the
family court erred in ordering Husband to pay $5,000.00 of Wife's attorney's fees: Lanier v. Lanier, 364 S.C. 211, 215, 612 S.E.2d 456, 458 (Ct. App. 2005) (stating that
in family court appeals, this court may find facts in agreement with its own
view of the preponderance of the evidence); Lewis
v. Lewis, 392 S.C. 381, 394, 709 S.E.2d 650, 656 (2011) (stating
that the decision to award attorney's fees "'rests within the sound
discretion of the family court'" (quoting Brunner v. Brunner, 296
S.C. 60, 62, 370 S.E.2d 614, 616 (Ct. App. 1988))); E.D.M.
v. T.A.M., 307 S.C. 471, 476-77, 415 S.E.2d 812, 816 (1992) (providing that
in deciding whether to award attorney's fees, the family court should consider:
(1) the parties' ability to pay their own fees; (2) the beneficial results
obtained by counsel; (3) the respective financial conditions of the parties;
and (4) the effect of the fee on each party's standard of living); Glasscock
v. Glasscock, 304 S.C. 158, 161, 403 S.E.2d 313, 315 (1991) (holding that
in determining a reasonable attorney's fee, the family court should consider: "(1)
the nature, extent, and difficulty of the case; (2) the time necessarily
devoted to the case; (3) professional standing of counsel; (4) contingency of
compensation; (5) beneficial results obtained; and (6) customary legal fees for
similar services").

AFFIRMED.

PIEPER, KONDUROS,
and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

[1] We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to
Rule 215, SCACR.